国际法教授作为法庭之友支持雪佛龙诉唐泽格案被告的摘要

D. Anton
{"title":"国际法教授作为法庭之友支持雪佛龙诉唐泽格案被告的摘要","authors":"D. Anton","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1863047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Between 1964 and 1990, Texaco dumped about 16 billion gallons of toxic substances into the surface water of the Amazon, relied upon by indigenous Amazon and remote farmers. Texaco also created hundreds of unlined pits in the jungle floor and filled them with toxic sludge. In 1993, the Amazon indigenous communities and remote farmers sued Texaco in the United States, its home jurisdiction, seeking redress for damages caused by Texaco’s operations. From 1993 to 2002 Texaco and later Chevron, when it acquired Texaco, fought to have the case dismissed and moved to Ecuador as the more appropriate forum to try the case. Ultimately, the U.S. action was dismissed in exchange for promises by Chevron to accept jurisdiction in Ecuador and satisfy any judgment rendered by an Ecuadorian court. The case was re-filed and tried in Ecuador. On February 14, 2011 the Provincial Court of Sucumbios awarded the Ecuadorian plaintiffs $8.6 billion in damages, with $5.6 billion going toward environmental remediation. Anticipating the worst, Chevron took preemptive action back in the United States. With the judgment not final and no attempt by the Ecuadorian plaintiffs to enforce in the U.S., Chevron filed a complaint against the Ecuadorians seeking declaratory relief for non-recognition of the Ecuadorian judgment and a preliminary injunction enjoining the Ecuadorians from seeking to have the Ecuadorian judgment recognized or enforced anywhere in the world. On March 7, 2011, the U.S. Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York granted the preliminary injunction in this Opinion. The Ecuadorian's have appealed and this amicus brief was filed on June 9, 2001 in support of the Ecuadorians. The brief seeks to show that the District Court erred in granting the injunction and that international legal obligations of the United States requires that the injunction be dissolved and the case dismissed.","PeriodicalId":170565,"journal":{"name":"INTL: Other Emerging Markets: Regional Perspective (Topic)","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brief of International Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants in Chevron versus Donziger\",\"authors\":\"D. Anton\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1863047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Between 1964 and 1990, Texaco dumped about 16 billion gallons of toxic substances into the surface water of the Amazon, relied upon by indigenous Amazon and remote farmers. Texaco also created hundreds of unlined pits in the jungle floor and filled them with toxic sludge. In 1993, the Amazon indigenous communities and remote farmers sued Texaco in the United States, its home jurisdiction, seeking redress for damages caused by Texaco’s operations. From 1993 to 2002 Texaco and later Chevron, when it acquired Texaco, fought to have the case dismissed and moved to Ecuador as the more appropriate forum to try the case. Ultimately, the U.S. action was dismissed in exchange for promises by Chevron to accept jurisdiction in Ecuador and satisfy any judgment rendered by an Ecuadorian court. The case was re-filed and tried in Ecuador. On February 14, 2011 the Provincial Court of Sucumbios awarded the Ecuadorian plaintiffs $8.6 billion in damages, with $5.6 billion going toward environmental remediation. Anticipating the worst, Chevron took preemptive action back in the United States. With the judgment not final and no attempt by the Ecuadorian plaintiffs to enforce in the U.S., Chevron filed a complaint against the Ecuadorians seeking declaratory relief for non-recognition of the Ecuadorian judgment and a preliminary injunction enjoining the Ecuadorians from seeking to have the Ecuadorian judgment recognized or enforced anywhere in the world. On March 7, 2011, the U.S. Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York granted the preliminary injunction in this Opinion. The Ecuadorian's have appealed and this amicus brief was filed on June 9, 2001 in support of the Ecuadorians. The brief seeks to show that the District Court erred in granting the injunction and that international legal obligations of the United States requires that the injunction be dissolved and the case dismissed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":170565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"INTL: Other Emerging Markets: Regional Perspective (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"INTL: Other Emerging Markets: Regional Perspective (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1863047\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTL: Other Emerging Markets: Regional Perspective (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1863047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1964年至1990年间,德士古公司向亚马逊河的地表水中倾倒了大约160亿加仑的有毒物质,而亚马逊河的土著居民和偏远地区的农民依赖这些物质。德士古公司还在丛林地面上挖了数百个无衬里的坑,并用有毒污泥填埋。1993年,亚马逊土著社区和偏远地区的农民在美国起诉德士古公司,要求赔偿德士古公司经营造成的损害。从1993年到2002年,德士古公司和后来收购德士古公司的雪佛龙公司一直在争取驳回此案,并将此案转移到厄瓜多尔,因为那里是审理此案的更合适的地方。最终,美国的诉讼被驳回,作为交换,雪佛龙承诺接受厄瓜多尔的司法管辖权,并满足厄瓜多尔法院的任何判决。该案在厄瓜多尔重新提交并审理。2011年2月14日,苏康比斯省法院判给厄瓜多尔原告86亿美元的赔偿金,其中56亿美元用于环境修复。雪佛龙预见到最坏的情况,在美国采取了先发制人的行动。由于判决并非最终结果,厄瓜多尔原告也没有试图在美国强制执行判决,雪佛龙公司对厄瓜多尔人提起诉讼,要求宣布不承认厄瓜多尔判决的救济,并提出初步禁令,禁止厄瓜多尔人寻求在世界任何地方承认或执行厄瓜多尔的判决。2011年3月7日,美国纽约南区联邦地方法院在本意见中批准了初步禁令。厄瓜多尔人提出上诉,并于2001年6月9日提交法庭之友简报,以支持厄瓜多尔人。摘要试图表明,地区法院在颁发禁令时犯了错误,美国的国际法律义务要求撤销禁令并驳回案件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Brief of International Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants in Chevron versus Donziger
Between 1964 and 1990, Texaco dumped about 16 billion gallons of toxic substances into the surface water of the Amazon, relied upon by indigenous Amazon and remote farmers. Texaco also created hundreds of unlined pits in the jungle floor and filled them with toxic sludge. In 1993, the Amazon indigenous communities and remote farmers sued Texaco in the United States, its home jurisdiction, seeking redress for damages caused by Texaco’s operations. From 1993 to 2002 Texaco and later Chevron, when it acquired Texaco, fought to have the case dismissed and moved to Ecuador as the more appropriate forum to try the case. Ultimately, the U.S. action was dismissed in exchange for promises by Chevron to accept jurisdiction in Ecuador and satisfy any judgment rendered by an Ecuadorian court. The case was re-filed and tried in Ecuador. On February 14, 2011 the Provincial Court of Sucumbios awarded the Ecuadorian plaintiffs $8.6 billion in damages, with $5.6 billion going toward environmental remediation. Anticipating the worst, Chevron took preemptive action back in the United States. With the judgment not final and no attempt by the Ecuadorian plaintiffs to enforce in the U.S., Chevron filed a complaint against the Ecuadorians seeking declaratory relief for non-recognition of the Ecuadorian judgment and a preliminary injunction enjoining the Ecuadorians from seeking to have the Ecuadorian judgment recognized or enforced anywhere in the world. On March 7, 2011, the U.S. Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York granted the preliminary injunction in this Opinion. The Ecuadorian's have appealed and this amicus brief was filed on June 9, 2001 in support of the Ecuadorians. The brief seeks to show that the District Court erred in granting the injunction and that international legal obligations of the United States requires that the injunction be dissolved and the case dismissed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Equity Markets Development and Economic Growth in Emerging Markets 대 중남미 중소기업 진출방안 연구: Oli 패러다임 분석을 중심으로 (Strategies for Korean Smes to Break into Latin American Markets: Based on the Oli Paradigm) Effects of Foreign Institutional Ownership on Foreign Bank Lending: Evidence from South America China’s New Exchange Rate Regime, Optimal Basket Currency and Currency Diversification Brief of International Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants in Chevron versus Donziger
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1